AL CHECCHI IS ONE OF THE MULTIMILLIONAIRE DEMOCRATS running for governor of California.
Asked by a reporter whether he would send his children to public school, he blurted
out, "Of course not. Why would I do a thing like that?"

Yet when the subject of Proposition 227 arose -- the ballot initiative that would
eliminate bilingual education and replace it with one year of English immersion --
Checchi was quick to smear it as "legislative vigilantism."

There you have the distilled liberal position on education: Under no circumstances
should you subject your own children to the flawed system but by all means slander
those who are working to change it. Steve Ybarra, a member of the California
Democratic Party's Latino caucus, calls Prop. 227 "racist thuggery."

Now, all good Democratic voters are expected to heed this shameless name calling
(which substitutes for argument) and conclude, "Gee, those Democrats are really
looking out for my welfare. They like me. Republicans are bad. They hate blacks,
Hispanics and women."

But something strange is happening in California this year. The voters are declining to
follow the usual script. Two-thirds of California voters support Proposition 227, and
only 20 percent oppose it. And according to a Los Angeles Times poll conducted
between May 16 and May 20, 62 percent of Latino voters
favor the initiative. If only Latinos voted on June 2, the initiative would pass by a
landslide. "I don't think it's anti-immigrant," a Latino corporate account manager told the
Los Angeles Times. "In order to succeed in this country, you have to speak English."

The truth, that bilingual education actually harms those it was intended to help (sound
reminiscent of welfare?), is sinking in. And despite the predictable resort to "the race
card" and name calling by self-styled Latino leaders and Democratic officeholders, the
people appear ready to give bilingual education the heave-ho.

Now, the ordinary observer might imagine that Republicans would be skillfully exploiting
this chink in the Democratic armor to make the case that they are the party of inclusion.
You would think they'd want to convey that they are the party that wishes to see
non-English-speaking children smoothly and rapidly integrated into the American
mainstream and that they are the party that opposes balkanizing and segregating
children by skin color or language spoken at home.

One might imagine Republican officeholders citing studies by the University of Maryland
and New Mexico State University showing that children enrolled in bilingual education
enter the work force at a severe disadvantage and go on to earn significantly less than
children taught exclusively in English. If you really used your imagination, you could
envision Republicans making the case that in our polyglot era, when not two but dozens
of different languages are spoken in California homes, bilingual education eventually
becomes completely untenable. And finally, you might hope that Republicans would
stress the importance of a common language in knitting all Americans, whether of
Hispanic, Asian or other ancestry, together as one people.

If you imagined that Republicans were making any of those arguments, you would be
disappointed. The proposition's sponsor, Ron Unz, did challenge Pete Wilson for the
Republican nomination for governor, but he is pretty much alone in the Republican Party
in supporting this initiative (Wilson is a late and unwelcome convert to 227). While the
campaign of vilification waged against Prop. 227 hasn't swayed voters, it has blown the
Republicans right down. They are hiding like mice.

Even Dan Lungren, the Republican candidate for governor (who is the closest thing to a
white knight the Republican Party has at the moment -- watch this man), has objected
to Prop. 227 on local-control grounds.

Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that denied state services to illegal immigrants,
damaged the Republican Party's standing with Spanish-speaking voters. That is
unfortunate. But Republican politicians have learned the wrong lessons. Instead of
making the case that they are pro-success for Spanish-speaking immigrants, they
seem to think they must kow-tow to the orthodoxy of the most extreme multicultural
Democrats.

The public is leaving them
behind.

5/2/98: The truth about women and work5/27/98: Romance in the '90s 5/25/98:Taxing smokers for fun and profit5/19/98: China's friend in the White House
5/15/98: Look out feminists: here comes the true backlash
5/12/98: The war process?
5/8/98: Where's daddy?
5/5/98: The joys of boys
5/1/98: Republicans move on education reform
4/28/98: Reagan was right 4/24/98: The key to Pol Pot 4/21/98: The patriot's channel 4/19/98: Child-care day can't replace mom4/15/98: Tax time4/10/98: Armey states obvious, gets clobbered4/7/98: A nation complacent?4/1/98: Bill Clinton's African adventure3/27/98: Understanding Arkansas3/24/98: Jerry Springer's America3/20/98: A small step for persecuted minorities3/17/98: Skeletons in every closet?3/13/98: Clinton's idea of a fine judge3/10/98: Better than nothing?3/6/98: Of fingernails and freedom3/3/98: Read JWR! :0)2/27/98: Dumb and Dumber2/24/98: Reagan reduced poverty more than Clinton2/20/98: Rally Round the United Nations?2/17/98: In Denial2/13/98: Reconsidering Theism2/10/98: Waiting for the facts?2/8/98: Cat got the GOP's tongue?2/2/98: Does America care about immorality?1/30/98: How to judge Clinton's denials1/27/98: What If It's Just the Sex?1/23/98: Bill Clinton, Acting Guilty1/20/98: Arafat and the Holocaust Museum1/16/98: Child Care or Feminist Agenda?1/13/98: What We Really Think of Abortion1/9/98: The Dead Era of Budget Deficits Rises Again?1/6/98: "Understandable" Murder and Child Custody1/2/98: Majoring in Sex12/30/97: The Spirit of Kwanzaa12/26/97: Food fights (Games children play)12/23/97: Does Clinton's race panel listen to facts?12/19/97: Welcome to the Judgeocracy, where the law school elite overrules majority rule12/16/97: Do America's Jews support Netanyahu?